Caparo v Dickman (3) duty of care

Caparo purchased shares in fedility in reliance of the accounts which stated the company had made 1.3 mil. They had actually lost £400,000. Caparo bought an action against the auditors claiming negligence in certifying the accounts.

No duty of care was owed as no proximity between the auditors and caparo.

Gave a 3 stage test in establishing a duty of care

Use the test where there is no precedent or analogous precedent.

1. Was the harm suffered by the clm a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the dfs act?

Haley v London Electricity Board 1965.

blind clm tripped over a hammer whihc df had placed to stop people walking along path.